Ether Drag Hypothesis Explained - 65 Characters

[Reshma]

Can someone explain me the ether drag hypothesis?

 

[Janus]

Ether drag was a concept invented to help explain the failure of the the M&M experiment to measure any movement of the Earth with respect to the ether.
The idea was that massive objects drug a "bubble" of ether with them as they moved. Thus the local ether is moving with the Earth and we wouldn't be able to detedt any motion with respect to the ether as a whole with experiments close to the Earth's suface.

This hypothesis fails due to the fact that we see stellar aberration that we do. If we drug a bubble of ether with us, the amount of stellar aberration we measure would be much less or absent all together.

 

[Fairfield]

While you are on the topic of a controversial ether I think I should mention that in 1920 A. Einstein accepted the idea that there is an ether. Please check the following link for more on this.
````
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

 

[selfAdjoint]

While you are on the topic of a controversial ether I think I should mention that in 1920 A. Einstein accepted the idea that there is an ether. Please check the following link for more on this.
````
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Oh lord, not that old canard again!

Short answer: what Einstein meant, as is clear from the whole quote, is that his curved, active spacetime in general relativity had taken the place of the old ether as a "something" extended through space (it WAS space!) that supported physics. He did not accept any form of the luminiferous ether that was thought up in the nineteenth century.

 

[polyb]

Oh lord, not that old canard again!

Short answer: what Einstein meant, as is clear from the whole quote, is that his curved, active spacetime in general relativity had taken the place of the old ether as a "something" extended through space (it WAS space!) that supported physics. He did not accept any form of the luminiferous ether that was thought up in the nineteenth century.

Don't forget that the ether proposal was a way to explain the transmission of light waves. Of course it did not make sense because the ether had to be very dense and rigid in order to account for the high velocity of light waves.

I can see where people could think that the dragging of spacetime looks a lot like the ether proposal unless you consider why it was made.

 

[yogi]

polyb - It is not necessary to regard the ether as rigid to get a value for c that complies with its experimental value. If you take the average energy density rho of the universe you get about 10^-26 kgm/m^3. If that energy exists in the form of spatial stress, then since c = (p/rho)^1/2 you can arrive at numbers that are in the range of c depending upon the assumptions made about pressure and/or modulus

Self adjoint - your slant upon Einstein's later views re the ether are not born out by an unbiased reading of what was said. Einstein left no doubt that the concept of an ether (what he frequently referred to as space) was substantive - not just in his 1920 address at Leyden, but in many other confirmations thereafter - in particular his speach honoring Faraday. The only thing dismissive about the ether was his statement that the idea of motion could not be applied to it.

 

[Chronos]

That is just plain wrong, yogi. Einstein flatly rejected any notion of 'aether'. SA is not taking a 'slant', he is merely being factual, as was polyb.

 

[yogi]

Chronos - your are either uniformed as to Einstein's writings - or you don't understand the plain meaning of his words.

 

[russ_watters]

Could you expand, yogi - and explain the apparent contradiction in the fact that motion can't be applied to Einstein's "aether"? That is, affter all, one of the most important features of the classical "aether." Also, did Einstein consider this "aether" a medium on which light propagated? And finally, how does all of this jive with Relativity?

In short, yogi, I ask you to explain how that all fits (or doesn't fit) with the conventional interpretation (and it is the conventional interpretation) of Einstein's position that this new "aether" is wholly different from the classical aether believed-in previously.

 

[yogi]

Russ - I have posted excerpts from Einstein's addresses previously - if you want I will repost them. But I think you are equally familiar with them. Einstein only said the notion of an ether is superfluous to the derivation of the LT(s). So its properties, whatever they are, do not figure into SR. But the conditioning of space by matter as per GR, and Einsteins statements regarding the reciprocity of reactionary force being consequent to either 1) acceleration of mass wrt space or 2) acceleration of space wrt mass, would certainly support the idea of a substantive medium. To my knowledge he never said that the propagation of em waves involved the ether or that a medium was necessary for light waves - that comes from Maxwell. I am not sure what your referring to when you say "New" ether - did Einstein change his trajectory between 1905 and 1920 as to the ether? - it would appear that he did - but again, contrary to the many textbooks that assert SR did away with the concept of an ether, it did not. SR is simply silent on the subject. So it could be argued that Einstein really hadn't changed his mind, he simply wanted to stress the symmetry of the Lorentz transforms as being self referential as between relatively moving inertial frames. - no ether being required.

As for whether a classical ether exists in the sense of a medium for light propagation, it is still unresolved. Space as a capacity per unit length and an inductance per unit length and those two factors determine the velocity of em waves just as they do in a transmission line. You wouldn't argue that the inducance and capacitance of a transmission line do not determine is impedance or its propagation properties - so why would it make sense to ignor these same factors when dealing with space.

Neither MMx nor any of the other over and back experiments proved anything about the one way velocity of light, ergo they do not disprove the existence of a medium. The invariance of the round trip velocity of light is not inconsistent with an ether because time dilation provides the exact amount of correction to make the round trip velocity appear to be isotropic.

 

[ZapperZ]

As for whether a classical ether exists in the sense of a medium for light propagation, it is still unresolved. Space as a capacity per unit length and an inductance per unit length and those two factors determine the velocity of em waves just as they do in a transmission line. You wouldn't argue that the inducance and capacitance of a transmission line do not determine is impedance or its propagation properties - so why would it make sense to ignor these same factors when dealing with space.

Neither MMx nor any of the other over and back experiments proved anything about the one way velocity of light, ergo they do not disprove the existence of a medium. The invariance of the round trip velocity of light is not inconsistent with an ether because time dilation provides the exact amount of correction to make the round trip velocity appear to be isotropic.

So let me get this right. You're saying that there is nothing that can distinguish between this "ether" and "no ether"? That all the MM, Kennedy-Thorndyke, etc. type experiments are consistent to BOTH? That there is this "thing", but you can't distinguish any measurement from the scenario that says that it doesn't exist?

Zz.

 

[yogi]

I am not quite sure what is being imputed. As for Kennedy-Thorndyke, MMx and the like, these experiments are consistent with "no ether." But they are also consistent with several ether theories such as MLET, LR, and the Inertial Transforms developed by Selleri. Kennedy Thorndike did eliminate one class of ether theories based upon length contraction alone.

I am not saying there is nothing to distinquish between the existence of some spatial medium (call it what ever you want) and the idea of a vacuum devoid of both characteristics and energy. The question is whether the measured properties of space are a lose collection of unrelated attributes, or do they define the characteristics of a continuum of some sort.

 

[ZapperZ]

I am not quite sure what is being imputed.

I'm not "imputing" anything. I just wanted to make sure I am clear about what you were trying to say, that ALL of these experiments so far cannot distinguish between "there is ether" and "there is no ether", in whatever form of ether that you defined.

Zz.

 

[yogi]

Yes - I would say that SO FAR the experiments are inconclusive. But to examine this answer further - what is it that they are inconclusive about? - if the properties of space are sui generis we don't have much of anything to base a conclusion on - physics is basically a study of relationships - For example, we don't know what an electron is in terms of something else - we know it repels other electrons, has mass and contains exactly one unit of charge - but what is charge? ..We can ask a similar question with regard to the nature of the photon ...the point being that at a fundamental level we don't have a good model of many things - so when we say there is no ether - what does that mean? This is why the question of aetheral reality is not easily answered.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes - I would say that SO FAR the experiments are inconclusive. But to examine this answer further - what is it that they are inconclusive about? - if the properties of space are sui generis we don't have much of anything to base a conclusion on - physics is basically a study of relationships - For example, we don't know what an electron is in terms of something else - we know it repels other electrons, has mass and contains exactly one unit of charge - but what is charge? ..We can ask a similar question with regard to the nature of the photon ...the point being that at a fundamental level we don't have a good model of many things - so when we say there is no ether - what does that mean? This is why the question of aetheral reality is not easily answered.

But if we go by your argument, then you are implying that the existence of the "electron" and "photon" are also in doubt. I'd say that this is going a bit too far to say that we don't have a good model of many things.

An electron and a photon are defined by a set of properties. We TEST for those properties. When we get positive results, we conclude that there is a very high probability that electrons and photons exist. The nature of those properties are something else that will require a separate set of study, which is why people are looking for the Higgs, study spin-physics at RHIC, etc, etc.

The issue here is if there is a similar set of properties of the ether. I see different people defining it differently. The classical ether as pre 1900 clearly made several predictions. When one tries to measures these predictions and get null results, one draws one own conclusions. However, it seems nowadays that it is "fashionable" to try to redefine the ether in some other ways. So far, the ONLY consequences that I have seen coming out of such new definitions is that one cannot distinguish its presence from experiements that indicate it not being there. I don't know about you, but I find this highly dubious.

At some point, there HAS to be tangible deviations from "ether exists" and "ether does not exist". Anyone claiming that it does exist MUST make such predictions that are measureable.

I have double checked a number of citations that I have listed as verifying the postulate of SR and that claim the non-existent of the classical ether. These include:

C. Braxmaier et al., PRL v.88, p.010401 (2002);
P. Wolf et al., PRL v.90, p.060403 (2003);
Muller et al., PRL v.91, p.020401 (2003);
M. Fullekrug, PRL v.93, p.043901 (2004)
H. Muller, Phys. Rev. D 71, 045004 (2005).

In NONE of these, were there ANY challenges, rebuttals, or comments submitted to dispute or contradict the claims made. No one submitted anything saying to the effect that "oh, there's still ether. You're just not measuring its effect in this case because so-and-so".

When the properties of this new "ether" is itself rather etherial, it is impossible to pin down what properties it will have that will cause it to shout to the rest of the universe and says "I'm here!". Till then, I will go by the standard textbooks, because obviously, its presence so far has made zero impact on physics.

Zz.

 

[Reality_Patrol]

Yogi,

I have a question for you, and not in an argumentative sort of way. Your posts indicate that your are quite familiar with ether theories (both old and new). I am not. My question is probably a simple one for you then. Do any of these "define" the ether simply as the energy-momentum of space-time itself?

The reason I ask is there is an obvious and direct relationship between EFE's (in GR) and the classical equations of hydrodynamics. Schrodinger's "Space-Time Structure" does a nice job of making that point, in case you're interested.

 

[yogi]

Zapper, Reality Patrol. Granted there are numerous authorities that claim there is no ether - and by their definition of ether, that is propably true. Einstein during his years of contemplation following 1905, left little doubt of his convictions on the subject as per his 1920 address. From my perspective, it is not within the spirit of science to make outright assertions that certain things exist or do not exist. It is true we can define many of the properties of electrons and photons - but are they a substantive chunk of something?... a particle is again only described by its relationship with other particles and perhaps with all other particles if you take a holistic view. I have always been fond of Einstein's comment in his letter to his lifelong friend Besso near the end of his life: "All these years of conscious brooding about the photon have brought me no closer to the truth. Nowdays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows the answer, but he is wrong."

If you believe there is more to space than a vacuum you are in good company - Einstein and Dirac will do for a start. Consider the following:

1) Inertia - why is it that acceleration wrt space produces a reactionary force.

2) EM wave velocity - determined by the product of the inductance/lenght and capacitance/length of free space as per Maxwell

3) The Free space Impedance (377 ohoms) determined by the ratio of the same quantities.

4) The stretching of space as per Robertson's generally accepted explanation of cosmological red shift

5) The conditioning of space by matter as per GR

6) The expansion of space under conditions of negative pressure as per inflationary theories of energy creation

7) The attraction of two closely spaced parallel plates as per ____________

More later.

AS to RP's question, there is a website by a group that contain a collection of ether theories. Don't have the link available now - if you are curious I can find it. It contains about 50 or so papers some good, some not so good.

As to your question PR regarding space defined in terms of energy-momentum, you have hit very close to home as to my own personal opinion on the subject. Some years ago I derived a set of relationships that tied the spatial energy density to expansion .. for this to work, space must be considered to be under tension (a false vacuum as per ongoing inflation). The energy density turns out to be 1/R where R is the Hubble radius and the total energy turns out to be proportional to the area of the Hubble manifold. Whether these ideas are correct I cannot say - but it was gratifying that the predicted spatial energy density turned out to be precisely what is required to close the universe.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zapper, Reality Patrol. Granted there are numerous authorities that claim there is no ether - and by their definition of ether, that is propably true. Einstein during his years of contemplation following 1905, left little doubt of his convictions on the subject as per his 1920 address. From my perspective, it is not within the spirit of science to make outright assertions that certain things exist or do not exist. It is true we can define many of the properties of electrons and photons - but are they a substantive chunk of something?... a particle is again only described by its relationship with other particles and perhaps with all other particles if you take a holistic view. I have always been fond of Einstein's comment in his letter to his lifelong friend Besso near the end of his life: "All these years of conscious brooding about the photon have brought me no closer to the truth. Nowdays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows the answer, but he is wrong."

You actually did not address at all the point I made in my last posting. Why aren't there ANY challenges to those papers and their conclusions in the form of rebuttals, comments, etc.? And please don't point to me some website that tries to do this. Websites challenging established physics are a dime a dozen (or maybe even cheaper than that).

If there are legitimate rebuttals regarding the existence of the ether, then based on the non-existence of any rebuttals in legitimate journals, all I can say is that these people cannot put their money where their mouths are. If all they can manage are simply to whine about it in internet forums and some personal webpages, this then lends even less credence to any validity of their claims.

Please note that nowhere in here am I making any argument for "yes, there is ether" or "no there is no ether".

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

ZZ, this to me is the key (and thanks for picking up where I left off):

The issue here is if there is a similar set of properties of the ether. I see different people defining it differently. The classical ether as pre 1900 clearly made several predictions. When one tries to measures these predictions and get null results, one draws one own conclusions. However, it seems nowadays that it is "fashionable" to try to redefine the ether in some other ways. So far, the ONLY consequences that I have seen coming out of such new definitions is that one cannot distinguish its presence from experiements that indicate it not being there. I don't know about you, but I find this highly dubious.

At some point, there HAS to be tangible deviations from "ether exists" and "ether does not exist". Anyone claiming that it does exist MUST make such predictions that are measureable.

Two points:

1. Classical aether theorists predicted xxx properties and these properties were not found. Therefore, there is no evidence of the classical aether.

2. Einstein's aether does not have the same properties as the classical aether. If it doesn't look like a duck, quack like a duck, or walk like a duck, its not a duck. Call it "Einstein's duck" if you want, yogi, but its not the same as the "classical duck".

I have noticed some either theorists (and I'm not saying that's you, yogi - I'm not really sure what you believe) using point 2 to make an end-run around point 1. Ie, if we can convince people there is still an aether, maybe we can convince them its still the classical aether.

 

[juju]

Hi,

I too have thought of the space/time field as being best defined by an energy/momentum field structure. I would also add that it is probably necessary to add a vector spin field to this formulation. These formulations should be dynamic and not static.

Various structures and symmetries within this basic field idea might also be used to define all the fields and matter structures.

juju

 

[yogi]

julu - Very good point(s). The notion of a dynamic ether has much to commend it. Charge, for example, can be explained in terms of mechanical properties if electrons are considered as rotational space - i.e., three dimensional vorticies.

Russ - yes - I would concur that the concept of a conventional fluid ether does not meet the tests of modern physics. Nonetheless, space appears to be rich in properties - the problem is that the word "ether," got a lot of bad press. What is significant from my perspective is the interpretation to be put upon the "new ether"
I have a strong bias in favor of a holistic universe - that every aspect of every particle is imminent within the whole - and I see the ill-defined dynamics of this new ether as the key to finding the interconnectedness.

ZZ - There are challenges to "established Physics" by some very bright people. And there are others who simple don't understand why counter intuitive theories could be correct. The important thing is to be able to see which challenges, if any, have merit. We would like to think that what is printed in accepted peer reviewed literature, is true. While the laws of the universe are not going to be determined by public opinion, the direction in which we look for answers, may be.

 

[Reshma]

Does this mean that the concept of ether is still a matter of speculation even though theories and experimentation over the years have proved its non-existence?

 

[yogi]

Reshma - Experiments don't really prove its non existence - but they cast doubt on what was once thought to be a fluid-like medium that was believed necessary for em wave propagation.

In one of my earlier post I had started to list a number of theories and experiments that are consistent with some type of spatial continuum, give it what form you will. One thing of consequence that I had not yet listed is the anisotropy of the CBR - many claim this is evidence that the Earth is traveling relative to some fixed universal background (an all pervasive ether?).

Something I have toyed with from time to time is the idea that galaxies are better described in terms of rotating space rather than an assembly of gravitationally bound stars - In this model, the outer extensions of the disk are not traveling through space as such, but rather along with it - ergo, there is little or no centripital force - so the whole disc moves more like a wheel v = (r)w rather than a vortex
(v)(r) = constant.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZZ - There are challenges to "established Physics" by some very bright people. And there are others who simple don't understand why counter intuitive theories could be correct. The important thing is to be able to see which challenges, if any, have merit. We would like to think that what is printed in accepted peer reviewed literature, is true. While the laws of the universe are not going to be determined by public opinion, the direction in which we look for answers, may be.

Again, you missed my point. I NEVER said that is printed in peer-reviewed literature is TRUE! I can show you a slew of experimental and theoretical papers that have been proven to be wrong. However, getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is a NECESSARY (but not sufficient) criteria for anything to be considered legitimate. I have challenged ANYONE to show me just ONE case where a significant advancement in the body of knowledge of physics within the past 100 years or so in which the work was NEVER published in a peer-reviwed journal. This is such a blatant FACT, it isn't even funny nor disputed.

Again, you have been unable (or unwilling) to clearly site exactly where are these "challenges" to established physics per this ether thing. You will understand if I will not buy outright this idea just simply because you have the ability to say so. I respected your skepticism and intelligence by making an effort to clearly state a list of papers which report the experimental observations that I claim. At the very least, you should show the same respect and produce the same type of references rather than expect me to simply take your word for it.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Reshma - Experiments don't really prove its non existence - but they cast doubt on what was once thought to be a fluid-like medium that was believed necessary for em wave propagation.

In one of my earlier post I had started to list a number of theories and experiments that are consistent with some type of spatial continuum, give it what form you will. One thing of consequence that I had not yet listed is the anisotropy of the CBR - many claim this is evidence that the Earth is traveling relative to some fixed universal background (an all pervasive ether?).

Then do yourself, and us, a favor by submitting a rebuttal to one of the papers I listed. Put your reputation and credentials on the line by making your assertion public, and up to public scrutiny. Making statements such as these on an internet forum accomplishes NOTHING. It requires zero knowledge and zero credibility to be able to do that.

Zz.

 

[yogi]

ZZ - I really have a hard time understanding where you are coming from - your admonish me for citing references that raise questions about conventional views - you don't want me to cite anything that is not accepted in a peer reviewed journels - let's put the shoe on the other foot - what experiments and authority are you relying upon to denegrate the notion of an aethereal continuum.

Where do you get the idea that publication in a peer reviewed journel is a necessary but not sufficient condition for legitimation. I will give you a classic example of how peer reviews almost surpressed a very important breakthrough - The so called experts who where examining deBroglie's Phd thesis were of a mind to reject it - as a sort of afterthough, one of the examiners decided to send a copy of this bizaar paper dealing with matter waves to Einstein. Einstein replied: "He has lifted the corner of a great vail" The thesis was accepted. Thirteen years later debroglie was awarded a Nobel prize - the first ever granted for an academic thesis.

ZZ you have a chip on your shoulder - If you really want me to put up or shut up, offer me $100 for each article or idea I find that has been rejected by an acknowledged mainstream publication, that has turned out to be later of much value, and i will be on easy street.

You remind me of Kettering - when you take a new idea to a corporation, they tell you it won't work - then later you comeback with a model and show them it works and they say - yea - but it isn't any good - and then later you show them that it works and there is a market for it and they say - yes, its good, and it works, but we thought of it a long time ago.

 

[russ_watters]

yogi, I agree with ZZ. Your example of deBroglie proves his thesis, not yours: deBroglie was published. ZZ's criteria is not unreasonable.

I was once told by a high school history teacher that I wasn't allowed to have an original thought in his class: any idea I wrote in a paper had to originate from an expert (PhD, by his definition) in the field. At the time it seemed unreasonable, but I have come to realize that in any field, before you can challenge the existing paradigm, you must first thoroughly understand it. And "thoroughly" means studying it in college for 8 years and writing a thesis on it.

Challengers to Relativity are a dime a dozen - but how many of them have a PhD in physics? If someone with a PhD in physics does an experiment which produces a result that conflicts with Relativity, it might be a good reason to take notice. Until then, its pretty much just crackpots with blogs and book deals.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZZ - I really have a hard time understanding where you are coming from - your admonish me for citing references that raise questions about conventional views - you don't want me to cite anything that is not accepted in a peer reviewed journels - let's put the shoe on the other foot - what experiments and authority are you relying upon to denegrate the notion of an aethereal continuum.

Re-read the posting I did when I cited ALL those papers from PRL. What did you think they were? I specifically mentioned that in those papers, I did NOT see any rebuttals, followups, comments, etc. submitted to those journals to dispute their finding and conclusions. Therefore, I ASKED, where are these "disputes"? Where are they published? Do they only exist in forums like this or on someone's website? You do not find this to be highly dubious?

You have given NO references in which reputable physicists would dispute these experimental results and argue that these experiments still could not rule out the ether.

Where do you get the idea that publication in a peer reviewed journel is a necessary but not sufficient condition for legitimation. I will give you a classic example of how peer reviews almost surpressed a very important breakthrough - The so called experts who where examining deBroglie's Phd thesis were of a mind to reject it - as a sort of afterthough, one of the examiners decided to send a copy of this bizaar paper dealing with matter waves to Einstein. Einstein replied: "He has lifted the corner of a great vail" The thesis was accepted. Thirteen years later debroglie was awarded a Nobel prize - the first ever granted for an academic thesis.

Wait a second. Are you claiming that deBroglie's idea NEVER ever appeared in a peer-reviwed form?[1] Did you miss the fact that his thesis was sent to Einstein for a second opinion? And are you also not aware that, BY DEFINITION, a thesis HAS to be peer-reviewed as part of the process (who do you think make up the thesis committee? Quacks?)? Where do you get the idea that a phd thesis can just coming out weely-nelly without a bunch of "experts" signing off on the work?

ZZ you have a chip on your shoulder - If you really want me to put up or shut up, offer me $100 for each article or idea I find that has been rejected by an acknowledged mainstream publication, that has turned out to be later of much value, and i will be on easy street.

You remind me of Kettering - when you take a new idea to a corporation, they tell you it won't work - then later you comeback with a model and show them it works and they say - yea - but it isn't any good - and then later you show them that it works and there is a market for it and they say - yes, its good, and it works, but we thought of it a long time ago.

And all you are able to do is provide anecdotes. You still cannot show me where any advancement in physics can come out of work that never got published in a peer-reviewed journal. This means that if it doesn't appear in such form, it will NEVER make it anywhere. It is why such ideas are being pushed onto forums such as this, because it is the only means for them to see the light of day before they go off into oblivion.

I work with finding new stuff all the time. No practicing physicists work to prove things that have already been known and explained. The burden of proving that something is new, or different, or unknown falls on the person who's claiming such things. We try to make our results and meticulous and air tight as possible, and then we try to inform others in the field (our peers) by publishing these and going to conferences and presenting them. We also pay attention when papers are being published that either contradict or dispute what we have reported, or didn't agree to what we understand. This is because if necessary, we have to write rebuttals and comments to those, especially if we feel that they are in error. I see no such thing being done regarding this "ether" thing.

Maybe how you do science is different than how I do it. Do you have any confidence then, that your idea is valid and legitimate?

Zz.

[1] L. de Broglie, Comptes rendus, Vol. 177, 1923, pp. 507-510.

 

[yogi]

Zz I specifically stated that the deBroglie committee ultimately changed its mind - not because it had the wits within it, but because of Einstein's influence. This is an example of how a physics breakthrough almost got relegated to the circular file but for a fluke.

I happen to believe there are many good ideas that never get published because of the stance taken by mainstream physics. Of course, I would agree that theories based upon nonsense or those that defy fundamental laws should be rejected

Russ - my experience has been just the opposite. Like you, I was an engineer - time and again I saw the new kid on the block - an engineer put on a new project that involved some technology to which he had been recently introduced - make a comment or ask a question, that led the recogonized expert(s) to change their whole perspective on something. People tend to get in a rut when it comes to thinking about things in a certain way - we have a reluctance to accept new ideas in those areas where we consider ourselves as experts - we even get hostile - its the old industrial legacy of NIH. As an Engineer you will no doubt know what those letters stand for.

 

[yogi]

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here - the subject is the ether drag hypothesis - ZZ if you have articles that say there is no ether drag and all our experiments show this - I am not surprised there are no challenges. Ether drag theory is something that was pretty much discarded by aberration even before the theory was published. This is different than asking whether the Earth's mass conditions local space to make it locally isotroptic notwithstanding the Earth's motion. It is also different from asking - is there some form of ether.

With regard to peer review and acceptance - you are all no doubt familiar with Planck's comment to the effect that a new idea gets accepted only after those who hold with the conventional viewpoint, die off.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ - my experience has been just the opposite. Like you, I was an engineer - time and again I saw the new kid on the block - an engineer put on a new project that involved some technology to which he had been recently introduced - make a comment or ask a question, that led the recogonized expert(s) to change their whole perspective on something. People tend to get in a rut when it comes to thinking about things in a certain way - we have a reluctance to accept new ideas in those areas where we consider ourselves as experts - we even get hostile - its the old industrial legacy of NIH. As an Engineer you will no doubt know what those letters stand for.

Its completely understaneable: engineering is like that and that's part of why I like it. Some cocky, young engineer can think of a new way of doing something that the old engineers, who have always done it the same way, would never think of.

But science isn't like that. Its more structured, more precise - it has to be - because there has to be more certainty. Engineering may be a lot of trial-and-error, but in science, you can't just pull an idea out of the air and think its going to change the world. It would be boring to me, but truly new and revolutionary ideas are few and far between in science. Some scientists work for decades looking for that one "eureka" moment. Some never find it. The point is, it takes a lot of work to get there and its virtually impossible for a non-career scientist to do it. And that means credentials, a reputation, and published work are on the resume of just about everyone who has an impact in science. Why do you think Einstein even bothered to read deBroglie's paper? And don't forget: deBroglie's idea was pretty new (which explains the difficulty in getting it published) - aether theory is not and has been researched to death.

Some of the scientists here have said it - and I agree - it seems that a lot of engineers think science can work the way engineering does and that's why a high percentage of the "against the mainstream" ideas we see are from engineers.

edit: btw, I'm a young engineer - so I don't know what NIH stands for.

 

[selfAdjoint]

edit: btw, I'm a young engineer - so I don't know what NIH stands for.

"Not Invented Here". It doesn't just hit engineers, either.

 

[Icebreaker]

Is spacetime SOMETHING or NOTHING?

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz I specifically stated that the deBroglie committee ultimately changed its mind - not because it had the wits within it, but because of Einstein's influence. This is an example of how a physics breakthrough almost got relegated to the circular file but for a fluke.

But this does not even challenge, contradict, nor even address what I was stressing - that EVERY single ideas and discoveries in physics that has EVER made any significant contribution to the advancement of that knowledge MUST appear in peer-reviewed journal. So why did you even bring it up? The point is, the deBroglie DID publish his paper (look at the year it was published and the year he got his phd!). You brought up a faulty example to contradict what I was stressing, and ended up illustrating my point brilliantly!

I happen to believe there are many good ideas that never get published because of the stance taken by mainstream physics. Of course, I would agree that theories based upon nonsense or those that defy fundamental laws should be rejected

Again, you'll pardon me, but I just won't buy it just because you stated it. You claim to have given "references" to this ether thing, yet you have done no such thing. You claim that many intelligent people share your view about this ether thing, yet you have produced ZERO such papers to back your claim. All you have done, so far, is to simply say "oh, there are these and that and that...". Where ARE the "these and that"? I fully expected you NOT to just simply accept what I said. I expect you to insist that I back what I said with clear and relevant citations, which I have done. Now whow me letigimate rebuttals in support of your point that have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Till then, this is nothing but quackery.

Zz.

 

[Chronos]

Yogi, you make elegant arguments... but like Einstein said - "elegance is for tailors". Get used to it. You are flat out wrong and unable to admit it. Do you have observational evidence that supports your model... er, no you don't? Do you see a problem with your model?? All I see is droppings.

 

[yogi]

Chronos - Model --What model are you talking about - I don't even have model - at least one I am willing to share with you.

Zz - my-my - quackery.

Your posts reflect the hostility I was referring to in my post 29. Its really unbecoming guys.

Russ - I would agree that the typical engineering problem may have many end run solutions - I had in mind some specific examples that were at one time thought by the experts to be limitations which proved to be otherwise.

So what is the subject of this thread - its a question about ether drag. Its not a question about the existence of an ether - its whether something is entrained by the Earth as it moves through space - a proposal put forth after MMx to save the ether hypothesis. This is a different question than whether an ether exists - the lack of evidence for ether drag does not translate into "there is no ether" MMx was a two-way experiment - the nearly null result is nicely explained by the difference in the time rates of measuring clocks in relatively moving frames. The null results however, were first explained by assuming a physical length contraction as per Fitzgerald and later Lorentz. The existence of an ether is not relevant to over and back experiments. MMx and KTx and all over and back experiments will give the same result whether or not light propagates relative to a medium. We have not been at all successful in making an experiment to verify one way isotrophy - if and when that is done, then the ether theory as a propagation medium will finally be put to rest. For a reference see Zhang - Experimental bases of Special Realtivity.

In the meantime, perhaps someone can tell me how to regard the measured 377 ohm impedance of free space, and the fact that its permeability and permittivity determine a velocity which coincides with that of light

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz - my-my - quackery.

Your posts reflect the hostility I was referring to in my post 29. Its really unbecoming guys.

As is becoming a common theme here, you still missed the whole point of my question. My "hostility" here has NEVER been, and is not directed to, the "ether" claim. It has always been towards the idea that one can put forth so-and-so idea and leave it at that without proper justification. I asked you, way in the beginning, on whether ALL the experimental evidence collected, especially recently, are consistent with BOTH the "yes, there is ether" and "no, there is no ether" idea. You said, yes. Then I produce SEVERAL publications that reported on such thing, and in each one of them, a specific point was made that no such ether was ever measured. I then asked you if you did not find it highly dubious that with all the experimental claims that has been put forth that clearly indicated that there is no ether, that no one in the "yes, there is ether" camp would even manage to submit even ONE rebuttals against those reports? I mean, c'mon now! Not even ONE?

From there, it deteoriates into "well there are many important science that never got published", which is often the reply I always get from quacks when they can't justify why any of such ideas can only exist on the web and online forums.

Let's be clear about one thing: you STILL could not produce ANY published papers that would contradict the conclusions made by the papers that I cited. It means that IF there are "intelligent" people who disagree with such conclusions, then these people are highly "closeted" and would not or could not "out" themselves simply by the apparent lack of any legitimate response from them.

I have no way of evaluating if their stand is in any way legitimate or not simply because they haven't put their ideas clearly in such form (which is always a requirement when one submits a paper for publication). This is why I said this is NOT an argument on questioning if "ether exists" versus "ether does not exist", something you keep confusing this with. This is more of a question : "So where the hell are these people?" Do they their ideas only exist on open forums on the 'net (which would make it even more doubly dubious)? Or on someone's quack websites (go to Crank Dot Net if you don't believe me)?

If this is all they have managed to do - and by all practically appeared, by your lack of ability to cite them, it appears that way - then I am surprised that you are so willing to stick yourself out buying into such ideas.

Zz.

 

[yogi]

Zz - First of all I have not been able to download the articles you cited - when I try I get a message that what I have to install conflicts with a program I already have on my computer. So admittedly, I don't know what experiments were made.

So what I will say next can be discounted - but in general I find it very hard from an argumentative standpoint to conclude the absense of something becasue of the failure to detect some property of something. Absense of proof is not proof of absense as the old saying goes. If you could give me a one or two line summary of the essence of the property sought to be revealed, I might find a reference or two in rebuttal. But maybe not.

I know I am missing something in the point your are trying to make - but to me, it is premature to dismiss the ether, whether or not there is rebuttal experimental evidence that contradicts the positive experimental evidence that the property is not revealed by the methods used to detect it.

In my previous post a asked how it is that we measure a spatial impedance for the void and an em propagation velocity for the void that precisely corresponds to what we calculate based upon the permeability and permittivity of free space. I ask again - what does that mean to you. Isn't it incumbant upon those that deny the existence of a medium to explain this coincidence.

Zz - I am a skeptic through and through - I don't buy into ideas.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz - First of all I have not been able to download the articles you cited - when I try I get a message that what I have to install conflicts with a program I already have on my computer. So admittedly, I don't know what experiments were made.

So what I will say next can be discounted - but in general I find it very hard from an argumentative standpoint to conclude the absense of something becasue of the failure to detect some property of something. Absense of proof is not proof of absense as the old saying goes. If you could give me a one or two line summary of the essence of the property sought to be revealed, I might find a reference or two in rebuttal. But maybe not.

I know I am missing something in the point your are trying to make - but to me, it is premature to dismiss the ether, whether or not there is rebuttal experimental evidence that contradicts the positive experimental evidence that the property is not revealed by the methods used to detect it.

In my previous post a asked how it is that we measure a spatial impedance for the void and an em propagation velocity for the void that precisely corresponds to what we calculate based upon the permeability and permittivity of free space. I ask again - what does that mean to you. Isn't it incumbant upon those that deny the existence of a medium to explain this coincidence.

Zz - I am a skeptic through and through - I don't buy into ideas.

That's strange that you would have said that, considering you bought into the idea of the ether, and, without waiting for whatever "definition" and "observations" necessary. On the other hand, the CLASSICAL ETHER, which is what these experiments were testing, clearly predicted a set of observations. At the very least, such a concept is falsifiable, which is something that can't be said about YOUR idea of the ether, which seems to mimick the non-existence of the classical ether.

As for your "permeability and permittivity" of free space, would you CARE to find out how such values were derived? It is one thing to say that these quantities have some definition and values - it is another to make the huge leap into insisting that these are tell-tale signs of an "ether" (it certainly is NOT the classical ether). It is also a major clutching at straws - because I have yet to see any papers that are claiming that these quantites are connected to an ether (I won't hold my breath about getting any legitimate citation that is forthcoming).

And I am appalled that you are only now trying to read the references I have days ago, especially after dismissing them as not discounting your version of the ether. And *I* get accused of not being open minded?

But really, ALL of this is MOOT! If what you believe has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, it will NEVER, ever amount to anything. Evidence within the last 100 years or so has clearly shown this to be the absolute necessary criteria. Short of this, we are wasting out time.

Zz.

 

[yogi]

Zz you have peer-reviewed journel hang up. The free space properties were known for many years and measured by different methods - they were key to Maxwell's interpretation of light as em waves. The connection is so obvious, I can't believe you can dismiss it with such cavalier concission .. you make wild assertions, but have not offered a single rationale as to why these free space parameters have the values they do--- values which determine both the velocity of light and the impedance of space. They define c and Z in precisely the same way that the corresponding parameters of a transmission line determine its characteristic propagation velocity and impedance.

Where did I accuse you of not being open minded? Hostile, yes.

You have no idea of what my view of the ether is - - stop presupposing what you think you know - because you don't. I have said that space has measurable properties - see how far you can ride that donkey

 

[yogi]

Here is quote from one of the other threads posted by Turbo 1:

"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ...Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken."

Einstein

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz you have peer-reviewed journel hang up.

Damn right I do! It is the simplest, quickest, most OBVIOUS way to differentiate between quackeries and non-quackeries. If it is the necessary criteria for anything to be considered as legitimate, what's wrong with imposing it OUTRIGHT? After all, in the 15 years that I've posed the challenge on the 'net, NO ONE could come up with even a single, miserable example of anything within the past 100 years that have made any significant contribution to the advancement of physics that has NEVER appeared in peer-reviewed journals. So take THAT!

The free space properties were known for many years and measured by different methods - they were key to Maxwell's interpretation of light as em waves. The connection is so obvious, I can't believe you can dismiss it with such cavalier concission .. you make wild assertions, but have not offered a single rationale as to why these free space parameters have the values they do--- values which determine both the velocity of light and the impedance of space. They define c and Z in precisely the same way that the corresponding parameters of a transmission line determine its characteristic propagation velocity and impedance.

What wild assertion did I make? All I asked was that you look at HOW these values were derived! Go look at the most recent values published in CODATA and see what KIND OF EXPERIMENT were done to arrive at those values, and figure out what kind of ASSUMPTIONS that were implicit to those experiments! The fact that I DID NOT offer "a single rationale as to why these free space parameters..." is EXACTLY the proof that, unlike you, I did NOT make any "wild assertion"!

Where did I accuse you of not being open minded? Hostile, yes.

You have no idea of what my view of the ether is - - stop presupposing what you think you know - because you don't. I have said that space has measurable properties - see how far you can ride that donkey

I do not ride any donkeys on here. It was *I* who said that it is one thing to say that space has measurable properties - it is ANOTHER to implicate these properties as due to the presence of the ether. If it's anything, I was being overly conservative in this approach by refusing to jump to such conclusions. It is YOU who are riding this donkey to its death and trying to wildly make the connection between such properties and the presence of the ether, devoid of any theoretical foundation to connect those two. I suggest you stop accusing me of doing what you are practicing.

Zz.

 

[Locrian]

Chronos - Model --What model are you talking about - I don't even have model

That much seems clear.

 

[juju]

Hi Yogi,

I think that the permittivity and permeability properties must arise from the underlying vacuum field structure as I mentioned previously in this thread.

Another possibility is that they arise from quantuum vacuum fluctuations and the virtual particles produced.

juju

 

[yogi]

Juju - That is probably as good a guess as one can make - looking at capacitance as measure of the capability to store charge - it seems unavoidable that, in the absense of physical charges, what is being contained must exist in the form of a field. I have always found Feynman's explanation of the charging of a capacitor enlightening.
--says Feynman at page 27-7: "When the capacitor is being charged, the volume between the plates is receiving energy ...so there must be a flow of energy into that volume from somewhere. Of course you know that it must come in on the chargeing wires-NOT AT ALL. It can't enter the space between the plates from that direction because E is perpendicular to the plates; E x B must be parallel to the plates ..."

After some equations, "So there is an energy flow proportional to E x B that comes in all around the edges...the energy isn't actually coming down the wires, but from the space surrounding the capacitor"

So in the case of the permittivity of space - the relationship between the capacitive properties and the underlying field energy may be analogous

 

[russ_watters]

So what is the subject of this thread - its a question about ether drag. Its not a question about the existence of an ether - its whether something is entrained by the Earth as it moves through space - a proposal put forth after MMx to save the ether hypothesis. This is a different question than whether an ether exists - the lack of evidence for ether drag does not translate into "there is no ether"

Well, yeah, it does. The way to find the ether is by assuming it exists and hypothesizing about what properties it might/must have. That's what the MMx did and the failure of the hypothesis means that the starting assumption is called into question. The logic goes like this:

-If the ether exists, it probably has xxxxx properties.
-XXX properties were tested and not found.
-Therefore the ether may not exist.

I know I am missing something in the point your are trying to make - but to me, it is premature to dismiss the ether, whether or not there is rebuttal experimental evidence that contradicts the positive experimental evidence that the property is not revealed by the methods used to detect it.

Its not really about dismissing it, its simply about not considering it until there is a reason to: If there is no evidence that it exists and all theories that assume it exists are indistinguishable from those that assume it doesn't, what is the point of assuming it does? Isn't 100 years enough wasted time before we can stop considering its existence?

Remember, if observations are made that contradict with existing theory, we can, of course, re-open that door. But until such observations are made, speculation is just plain useless.

Its the invisible, purple elephant theory: you, of course, have no evidence that there is not an invisible, purple elephant in my garage and I can't prove that there is. Why are you not putting any effort into theorizing about this elephant? Why are you not putting any effort into speculating about God? Why aren't you speculating about any of the other infinite hypotheticals for which we have no evidence? What is it about the ether that makes you want to put effort into it, but not my invisible purple elephant? I think I know the answer, but I'd like to hear it from you.

 

[ZapperZ]

Its the invisible, purple elephant theory: you, of course, have no evidence that there is not an invisible, purple elephant in my garage and I can't prove that there is. Why are you not putting any effort into theorizing about this elephant? Why are you not putting any effort into speculating about God? Why aren't you speculating about any of the other infinite hypotheticals for which we have no evidence? What is it about the ether that makes you want to put effort into it, but not my invisible purple elephant? I think I know the answer, but I'd like to hear it from you.

Russ,

You forgot to include my invisible friend. He wants you to know that he is deeply offended for being left out, considering that he spent a whole day feeding and caring your invisible purple elephant.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ,

You forgot to include my invisible friend. He wants you to know that he is deeply offended for being left out, considering that he spent a whole day feeding and caring your invisible purple elephant.

Zz.

I knew my garage smelled better than it should for having an elephant living in there...

 

[juju]

Hi Yogi,

I think what happens in the capacitor case is that the E and B fields restructure the symmetry and structure of the vacuum field allowing the energy potentials of that field to be realized in the E and B field energy densities.

The energy is actually inherent in the field but in a potenial form that needs certain structure and symmetry to be manifest.

This would be similar for the case of quantum fluctuations and virtual particles. The E and B fields would restructure the random fluctuations and virtual particle alignments to produce a manifested enrgy field out of these potentials.

juju

 

[yogi]

Juju - so you are saying the E and B fields somehow restructure the space surrounding the capacitor to permit a convergent energy flow into the volume between the plates. So would there be an energy density gradient that drives the charging process?

Russ - your analogy would be appropriate if there were not so many things that indicate there could be a massless medium of some sort; it is not a case of equal likelihoods, albiet you might consider the two probabilites equal, i do not.